Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#41

Post by sdornan »

Esau wrote: post #33
abritinthebay wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also is way better than Spotify for me. It's everything I wanted out of a music service. Spotify was never going to have me as a subscriber but Apple Music was so much better (for me) that it was a no-brainer. But then I always preferred Pandora over Spotify anyhow (different use cases I know, but still).

In what way is Apple Music better than Spotify? I've tried both and, other than catalog differences, I don't see one as really being better than the other.

I chose Apple Music for a couple reasons:

1. I can add music to my streaming library that is not on their service and that music isn't treated any differently than the stuff in their catalog from a UI standpoint.

2. It integrates better into the Apple ecosystem, which I've already tied myself too. For example, play music using Siri and Apple TV support.

Also, I'm not a fan of Spotify's UI.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#42

Post by magic5227 »

heavymark wrote: post #38

While the Beats acquisition made sense for their talent and get a little faster entry into music streaming, but buying Tidal doesn't make much sense at all. Tidal software and technology doesn't offer anything of value. Jay Z presumably would not want to work under Apple long term. Tidal has licenses with a lot of artists but those wouldn't transfer to Apple Music, they would have to renogitate with them. And the who…

They aren't buying it as a competitor, its likely for the talent+exclusive content offerings.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#43

Post by bedhead »

My god, how can Apple be this bad at services that they need to acquire a garbage product like Tidal?? Tidal is junk, an elitist music streaming service that does more to screw over any artist not in the top 25 grossing than Spotify ever could. Jay-Z is a $%^$ing hack and for the first time I'm extremely disappointed with Apple's strategy assuming they do this deal.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#44

Post by dawnerd »

Tiksi wrote: post #32
Throwaway23412 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Music has been out for a year today. After the initial three-month free trial, I would think that most people would notice $10 missing from their bank accounts every month.

I once paid $80/mo for a year for a server I forgot I had. It happens.

Or at a certain point 10 dollars is nothing and the time alone to figure out apples weird settings isn't even worth it. I still pay for a few things that I never use but just don't feel like figuring out how to cancel.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#45

Post by Moto7451 »

bedhead wrote: post #43

My god, how can Apple be this bad at services that they need to acquire a garbage product like Tidal?? Tidal is junk, an elitist music streaming service that does more to screw over any artist not in the top 25 grossing than Spotify ever could. Jay-Z is a $%^$ing hack and for the first time I'm extremely disappointed with Apple's strategy assuming they do this deal.

I don't think they care about the service. They already bought one system and rebranded it. Doing it again makes little sense. They likely care more about the users and exclusive agreements they signed. Even if those aren't transferable, the removal of Tidal from the market will lead to new negotiations. Remember that iTunes/Apple Music exclusives are a great way to battle Play Music, Spotify, and Prime Music.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#46

Post by wlesieutre »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #17
k-mcgrady wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was a problem but one of the theories for why they would make this change is audio quality. I believe it would allow you to build pre-amps and things into headphones.

Yes, you would need at least a D/A converter and a preamp in the headphone. But why would you want to do this? Good headphone DACs/amps are relatively big and heavy and they run on batteries (yet another thing to charge). The Fiio E5 is a small headphone amp (no DAC), and it's still the size of an iPod Shuffle.

And if your headphones are getting a digital signal instead of a 3.5mm jack, you can put the relatively big and heavy DAC in the headphones instead of using the dinky one built into the phone. The lightning port will also deliver more power than the 3.5mm jack.

A pair of headphones has space for something the size of a Fiio E5 (potentially several times that size), but there's no way Apple or anybody else is going to built that quality internal to a phone.

Earbuds won't have the space for that hardware, so I expect the phone will still have an onboard DAC and an analog output mode over the lightning connector for use with cheap/small lightning earbuds and to allow a passive lightning/3.5mm adapter.

EDIT: As an addendum, I'm expecting we'll see a lot of bluetooth headphones with the iPhone 7, following in the Apple Pencil's "plug into lightning to pair and charge" setup. Hopefully also using the wire for data while they're connected.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#47

Post by gleenn »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #35

I knew this would happen from the beginning, but actually seeing it happen breaks my heart. I really can't interpret this as anything other than Jay-Z trying to be like Dr. Dre. The difference is Dr. Dre's company actually created a product people wanted, and he deserves the success. As for Tidal, how is this not different from union workers going on a strike? Except that people going on a strike do have legitimate r…

I have no issue particularly with your statement but technically Kanye isn't rich, last I heard he was 50 mil in the hole haha.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#48

Post by Mandatum »

To me it seems anti-competitive to disallow streaming services to use their own payment model. I expect a lawsuit to come from this and within the next two years either Spotify will be Daenerys, Breaker of Chains or Erlich Bachman, Waster of Cash.

It seems like Apple have created a monopoly within their own ecosystem. Whether their ecosystem is too big to be monopolised will be up to the lawyers as regulations are put in place. I expect American government to allow Apple to keep their monopoly as it'd be "unfair" to not let a company do what it likes with their own products.

If however the government decided this was a monopoly and regulations to be put in place, I expect Apple to get around this by "opening up" their eco system by making customers resign all Apple support for their products if they decide to "break out". Which is fair enough.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#49

Post by coldtea »

bedhead wrote: post #43

My god, how can Apple be this bad at services that they need to acquire a garbage product like Tidal?? Tidal is junk, an elitist music streaming service that does more to screw over any artist not in the top 25 grossing than Spotify ever could. Jay-Z is a $%^$ing hack and for the first time I'm extremely disappointed with Apple's strategy assuming they do this deal.

>My god, how can Apple be this bad at services

Apple services, from iTunes to the App Stores and iCloud are actually generating tens of billions of dollars per year.

Apple is just buying Tidal (if they do) for the userbase (and some content deals).

>Jay-Z is a $%^$ing hack

Good thing any such acquisition is not implying anything about Jay-Z's worth as an artist then.

Re: Apple in Exploratory Talks to Acquire Jay Z’s Tidal Music Service

#50

Post by coldtea »

rloc wrote: post #18
k-mcgrady wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I remember when Gruber was telling us that Apple was not buying Beats for the streaming service and its associated contracts. He really said that? I thought everyone at the time was pretty much agreed they were buying it for the streaming service, not the headphones. >> "That also explains why Apple is not approving the last Spotify app update. It's war." They're not approving it because supposedly Spotify built i…

>> "He really said that?" http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/05/08/beats "The problem with this theory is that those licenses (to my understanding) aren’t transferable in the event of an acquisition. Music label executives may be dumb, but they’re not that dumb." >> "They're not approving it because supposedly Spotify built in their own payment system which is a clear violation of App Store guidelines. Could be wr…

Only he also says there:

>I can’t see Apple keeping the “Beats” brand around for headphones. If Apple wanted to sell expensive high-end headphones, they don’t need to spend $3 billion.

So it's not like what the parent implied -- whether Gruber saying it wasn't for the licenses also meant Gruber though it was about the headphones.

Plus, Gruber could be totally right about the licenses not being transferable.

Apple didn't buy Beats neither for the licenses nor for the licenses. It bought them for the users, the know-how, and the connections (through Iovine and Dre).

Post reply on HN